Metaphor, culture and intercultural communication

Metaphor, culture and intercultural communication

Are metaphors universal or are they culture specific? How does culture shape metaphors? How do metaphors shape intercultural communication?

One of the most important observations concerning metaphors is their construct in terms of universalism.

Some conceptual metaphors are shared across very different cultures and are so inherent in the human mind’s capability of relating to abstract concepts, that they can reasonably be labelled as universal.

Whereas, others are rather closely connected and limited to the specific society in which they are used. Kövecses described the society as “a system of different ways of understanding reality shared by individuals, characteristic of smaller or bigger communities”[1], while a dialect is one of the main of such understandings.

Metaphor is not only a cognitive, but also a cultural concept. Conceptual metaphor is embedded in our culture, through which we are able to relate to abstract concepts in the world around us. As recognized by Lakoff and Johnson[2], metaphor use reveals the way we perceive the world and consequently the culture in which we live.

Culture, communication and metaphor

The role of culture in the world of business has been the subject of various research for at least twenty-five years[3].

The relationship between culture and communication might appear quite obvious to those influenced by postmodern, poststructuralist or cultural studies’ thinking. Nevertheless, due to Saussere, the turn towards communication has been possible.

Without the work by authors such as Wittgenstein and Austin, who stressed that signs cannot be considered in isolation from the actions in which they are produced, Habermas wouldn’t have been able to construct his “communicative paradigm”[4].

This was characterized by the assumption that culture is constructed through communicative actions. What’s important is the fact that in that paradigm, communicative action is meant to include the performance of social action in the use of language, nonverbal signs, cultural objects and artefacts. “Culture underlies every part of communication”[5].

The influence of culture on perception has given guidelines on the structure and interpretation of messages, which is of key importance in organizational life.

Scientists have started to take interest in the way behaviors and their meanings differ in particular cultures. Improving understanding of the communication phenomenon itself has become the objective of intercultural communication. Culture surrounded its own members in such a way that they lacked awareness of its existence.

According to D. Barnlund, “Cultural standards surround people so completely and permeate thoughts and actions to such a degree that only few people are aware of assumptions on which their life and reason are based”[6].

The notion of culture was first defined and intentionally applied by E.B. Tylor, who presented the widely cited and quoted meaning of culture in his work “Primitive Culture”. According to him, culture is a “complex entirety covering knowledge, faith, art, morale, law, customs and other abilities and habits acquired by human as a member of society”[7].

Culture constitutes a relatively integrated whole, including human behaviors corresponding to the models shared by a community, shaped and assimilated during interaction, as well as outputs of such behaviors[8].

Culture may also be defined as a system, in which the same symbols, beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations and behavior standards are shared. Thus, persons composing a given culture are characterized by the same assumptions regarding the way people should think, behave and communicate and usually behave in accordance with these assumptions[9].

Contemporary interest in intercultural communication commenced in the 1950s. At the time American anthropologists Edward T. Hall, Ruth H. Useem and John Useem started to analyse efficient communication between people from different cultures. It was then that the notion of intercultural communication was used for the first time[10]. Since that time the intercultural communication discipline has started to develop dynamically.

Development of the contemporary knowledge on intercultural communication has very practical sources. Intercultural communication has emerged as a result of strong pressure from practitioners.

After the Second World War the American government commissioned anthropologists to conduct research which was supposed to introduce the government to intercultural communication phenomena between the USA and hostile countries.

Intercultural communication is the direct result of the growing life internationalization.

It was businessmen, diplomats and activists of international organizations that stimulated researchers dealing with the intercultural communication phenomenon[11].

Knowing terminological problems related to communication and cultural notions, defining the common research field covering intercultural communication might be proposed.

Creation of the very definition of intercultural communication different from and, simultaneously, associated with its parent discipline, i.e. communication, may be regarded as the starting point for establishment of the intercultural communication discipline.

Culture is the central term here. E. Folb[12] defined it as “the plan, the guide”, whereas Hall[13] - as “the road map”. P. Harris and R. Morgan stated: “Culture influences and is shaped by each fact of human activity”[14]. The logic of the link between cultural orientation and communication itself is based on two fundamental functions fulfilled by communication[15]: relational (affiliation motives) and functional (reduction of uncertainty). Thus, intercultural communication may be defined as “the act of understanding and being understood by an audience of a different culture”[16].

Communication is intercultural when perspectives various in terms of culture influence the lack of possibility to create a single, shared culture[17], i.e. when there are obstacles at the level of sharing symbol meanings.

M. Lustig and J. Koester define intercultural communication as “the symbolic, interpretive, transactional and contextual process, in which the degree of diversity between persons is large and important enough to create diverse interpretations and expectations concerning competent behaviors and should be used in the process of creating shared meanings”[18]. In other words, intercultural communication takes place when information has emerged or has been coded in one culture and needs to be decoded in another culture[19].

When discussing intercultural communication, it is necessary to introduce the notion of the perceived intercultural communication competence, which is an impression that behavior associated with message transmission (message behavior) is correct and efficient in a given context[20]. Correctness means not violating principles and standards of a given culture[21], whereas efficiency relates to achieving the goal of interaction.

Managers communicating in intercultural environment need to ask themselves how much they know about a given culture and what they should know about it[22]. Becoming familiar with or knowing a given culture is not a goal itself but it should be set within the business context. Negotiations are the proper context for deliberations. It is worth remembering that cultures do not communicate with each other, it is the individuals that communicate with each other[23].

Competences connected with intercultural communication have originated from the field of research on interpersonal communication.

It is worth noticing that manager competent in communication with representatives of their own culture may lose their competences in case of contact with a different culture. Therefore, competences in the field of intercultural communication should be analysed from a separate point of view.

Managers succeeding in intercultural communication are aware of people’s tendency to evaluate facts from their own perspective, and try to adapt their point of view to the current situation and cultural diversity. According to the researchers E. Hall[24], G. Hofstede[25], D. Victor[26], L. Beamer[27] and F. Trompenaars[28], cultural values influencing behavior and communication are, as follows: perception of the individual's role, hierarchy, formalism, context, role and time perception, the perception of risk and uncertainty, the connection of humans with the universe and the perception of the meaning of one’s own culture. It is worth noticing that in the western models of communication, the critical role is assumed by the sender. R. Yan[29] criticizes western communication models, which emphasize the active role of the sender. Yan prefers a model in which both parties cooperate closely.

With respect to communication processes the following features of culture are worth emphasizing:

1. Culture manifests itself through language, behavior and activity. It provides standard models, thanks to which it is easier to act in everyday interactions, as well as interactions inside business organizations, thus facilitating communication. Owing to culture, it is possible to function within a given organization or society.

2. It is worth adding that a rigid image of a given group’s culture may lead to emergence of stereotypes which, actually, do not have much in common with reality. Thus, behavior standards shared within a given group should be perceived as possible or probable “forecasts of a scenario” of a given organizational or communication situation. These hypotheses or “forecasts” ought to be tested, modified and improved, depending on the real communication situation.

3. One should remember that there will always be persons whose behavior will significantly deviate from behavior of other members of a given cultural group. Their views, customs and standards will not be the same as those applied by other members of their culture.

4. People within the same culture will differ in religion or even the level of education. Women and men will be two different cultures within one culture. Enterprises, organizations or educational institutions will also have their own cultures.

5. Becoming aware of the way in which the culture of one country is similar and the way in which it is different from the culture of another country is the essence of intercultural understanding. The “another country” phrase has been used here because, when speaking about international environment, culture is usually understood at the national level[30].

Culture is such a complex phenomenon that understanding a diverse culture requires many years of contact with it. T. Todorov in “Nous et lesautres” maintains that during our lifetime we may assimilate one or two cultures different from our own. Real understanding of a different culture occurs only when we have constant contact with its representatives and compare ourselves to them[31]. The Author deals with selected aspects of intercultural marketing in the next chapters.

Researchers have studied the influence or the impact of national cultures on organizational behavior and the way managers from different cultural backgrounds interact with one another[32].

According to Kövecses culture is “a set of shared understandings that characterize smaller or larger groups of people”[33] with language being the most prominent shared characteristic. Hofstede and Hofstede suggest that “culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”[34].

Bjerke expresses the opinion that culture is a mechanism which fuses social structures[35]. Scholars generally agree that variations between groups can exist on multiple dimensions: cognitions, behaviors, and values.

Undoubtedly adequate knowledge of both language and culture is needed to communicate effectively in any society, but success in communication relies heavily on the recognition of those cultural patterns and values that shape the cross-cultural communications process.

            However, it would be “misleading to separate the more universal concepts completely from the culturally variable ones. This is because even the more universal concepts are formed in a cultural-specific environment.

They are also influenced by cultural factors, even though not as much as others”[36]. Lakoff and Johnson claim that “all experience is cultural through and through [...] we experience our ‘world’ in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself”[37].

Kövecses believes that while a conceptual metaphor may be shared across cultures and languages, the conceptual metaphor may be expressed in very different ways in two languages and cultures[38].

It is worth stressing that the conceptual system is grounded in a specific way, and that the concepts that get mapped are not mapped randomly, i.e. target domains are usually more abstract where source domains are usually more concrete.

Johnson and Lakoff say, “We typically conceptualize the nonphysical in terms of the physical”[39], meaning that we typically map from a domain that we can touch, feel, understand or see to domains that cannot be seen or comprehended so easily.

Dobrzynska thinks that “dialectal boundaries lie within the boundaries of social groups visible to the naked eye”[40]. She believes that in this case a discourse is based on a combination of opinions and aptitudes, a result of which is understanding organizational reality. Dobrzynska compares the movement of different images of the world and phenomena between discourses, locating the problem in a separate area of phenomena[41].

The researcher claims that representation has transformed into a different object created by a specific combination of circumstances, which may lead to the emergence of an alternative understanding of the given allegory[42].

However, Kövecses thinks that some similarities are so immanent to the human ability to identify conceptual ideas that, with a certain degree of prudence, they can be described as omnipresent, and thus as universal.

Kövecses attempts to explain the crack in the deliberations of the abovementioned researchers on theoretical analogies and their universality, and the existence of many interchangeable etymological allegories within different dialects and communities.

According to Kövecses, despite the fact that metaphors can be transmitted between dialects and groups of people, a specific metaphor can be communicated using completely different channels in both dialects or groups[43].

Trim believes that the trans-etymological comparability is “adaptable in figurative speech, although there are expressions that sound strange in one dialect but not in another”[44]. In this context, the researcher functionalised the notion of “dialectal variations”[45], useful in describing these interdialectal differences. Dialectal variations are understood as the correspondence between analogies and the rules of a specific dialect.

For example, if a representation in ST[46] seems exaggerated in TL, it is easier to substitute an image in ST for TT. Trim agrees that the interpreting party enjoys greater freedom in understanding written materials than anything else, e.g. a television documentary.

The reason for this is silent consent: similarities in ST can appear odd or completely new to a native speaker, and should perhaps be allowed the same unfamiliarity in the TT[47]. It may be assumed that journalists most often use analogies introducing linguistic innovation, pushing the persuasive effect into the background. Regardless of the fact whether the person interpreting a press release perceives it in a similar way, silent consent is just asking for being questioned, which has an effect on the interpretation process.

Cristofoli et al. advanced the thesis that there is one more type of contrast between metaphors, viz. between similarities in fiction and non-fiction. In non-fiction texts metaphors should be immediately clear without any considerable effort on the part of the recipient. Metaphors of this type are parts of reproducible convention[48], which increases the probability that the recipient is familiar with them and has already classified them in their mental lexicon. Naturally, it is worth emphasising that this does not mean that in the case of feature or documentary content the convention always imposes the same understanding.

Nevertheless, metaphors are subordinate to the general formal logic of the work. Referring to the terms coined by Trim, similarities with a low degree of TL saliency would require greater effort in interpretation than media representations with a high degree of TL saliency, as similarities in ST cannot be directly transferred into TL. Of course, this suspicion can only be deemed justified if one assumes that immediate interpretation of an image requires lower (in subjective terms) effort than the repeated or alternative configuration of a message.

Over the last years we have witnessed an increase in the number of psycholinguistic studies on specific aspects of experiencing metaphors. Within this paradigm one can distinguish neuroimaging[49], oculography – tracing eye movements[50], or response time measurement[51].

For example, the studies by Inhoff et al. from 1984 intensively used the oculographic method in order to analyze the time of reception of metaphorical or explanatory figures of speech. They discovered no difference between the phrases based on associations and unrelated phrases.

Two researchers, Blasko and Kasmierski, noted that metaphorical representations could be easily translated in the right context or as part of a fairly clear structure of semantic scopes[52]. Mashal and Faust used neuroimaging to prove that the process of allegorical explanation was influenced by a certain number of variables, such as the metaphorical nature or style of presentation or transmission.

There are two contradictory views on the process of experiencing reality through metaphors. The first one is based on an assumption that the perception of metaphors requires increased intellectual effort, while the process itself entails several stages[53]. Searle claimed that similarities are expressed in a figurative way whenever literal expressions prove imperfect[54].

Researchers Blasko and Connine called it abnormal processing[55]. The other perspective[56] on the perception of metaphors emphasises that they function in a similar way to literal speech and do not require increased effort. Following the terminology of Blasko and Connine, this is immediate processing.

Metaphors can also be understood as a method of broadening imagination within the organizational science. In both cases Morgan says that all researchers – deliberately or not – are driven by mental images underlying their reasoning: “(…) all speculations concerning the functioning of organizations or administration are related to the presence of verifiable images or similarities, thanks to which we develop the ways of understanding and supervising organizations in a specific, yet fragmentary manner”[57].

In both cases the question of attitude to metaphors in the organizational science goes deeper, as we do not have any specific data on the influence of national diversity on the processes presented.

In their surveillance study, Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) demonstrated how the image of the notion of cooperation proves to be heterogeneous when analyzed, while the concepts of “separation of powers” and “independence” have a significant influence on the development of contrasting tendencies to conceptualise similarities. For example, the concept of cooperation seems overwhelming in societies based on individualism (Hofstede, 1980).

For example, the French organizational science offers more space to individuals as organization members. This is described using the notion of concentration, which cannot be easily compared with any other notion developed by the German organizational science.

Concentration is connected with barter procedures. Foglierini-Carneiro and Mélčse used this notion to describe instruments of relationship management, which are adopted by different entities to describe the coordination of elements. Although no university course offers a comprehensive presentation of the structures described here, concentration processes are significant points of reference for many textbooks. All French researchers analyze speculative ideas concerning the administration area as a manifestation of power and connections. (quotation)

Finally, most of them broadly discuss the issue of co-responsibility of employees for the functioning of an organization. One can clearly see that texts by the French treat organization members as the main objects of interest, and they perceive their actions and the structures formed in close reference to them, whereas German researchers treat them as completely separate phenomena.

What is more, a group of French authors to a greater or lesser extent based their methodologies on the structuralists’ research. Until now there has been no ordered introduction to the issues discussed herein. The role played by individuals is discussed best and most clearly byGmur: according to the French, they are the main carriers of the sense of interest or purpose in the organization whereas to Germans they are only data carriers[58].

 According to the view prevailing in the literature[59], metaphors drawn from the area of developmental studies, related to business, by definition connote aggression. This makes them more focused on certain issues than the original application would suggest.

For example, Strand and Freeman are of the opinion that the very use of the word “rival” instead of, for example, “partner” confirms the domination of metaphors mostly based on hostility and opposition within the management[60]. The analogies presented contain a concealed assumption about the inevitable striving for confrontation.

Metaphors used by the management mainly focus on competition. They concentrate on gaining advantage over the enemy in pursuing goals. They are drawn from military and sports areas. Such metaphors suggest that business is a zero-sum game. They are not just linguistic expressions; they have an influence on the decisions and actions taken.

The use of metaphors evoking aggression supports such marked business conduct. We agree with the view that this builds a false image of managerial processes. “Survival of the fittest”, as a metaphor determining the way of thinking, rejects any reflection on moral issues, humanism, or building a supportive community.

Gaining advantage through development is the basic goal business organizations should set themselves. The idea of advantage can be examined in an interesting way in terms of the functioning of the managerial staff. In order to ensure effective and comprehensive management, taking into consideration the local context, organizations have to surpass their expectations, and thus to evolve and change their organizational DNA.

Gaining and maintaining advantage is not an easy task, neither is it a task devoid of any structure or method. In this case, the metaphorical method seems to be the right solution. What is significant within the concept of management is the procedure and methodology of setting goals of an organization, building a strategy, and coming to agreements in order to achieve the goals set and to spend the resources possessed[61]. Metaphors are perfect in the case of such tasks.

Scholars studying metaphors from a cognitive perspective show several phenomena as proof that metaphors are in fact dynamic, language-independent, conceptually active structures. Johnson and Lakoff[62] looked at linguistic evidence that included “novel case generalization” which is the ability to understand entire, novel, linguistic expressions by using shared conceptual structures.

Recent decades have seen a growing body of neuroimaging research, as well as psychological studies, that support the case for metaphor’s role in cognitive reality. These studies include predictions of the image-schematic structure of various concepts[63]: priming experiments[64]; forced-choice and free-form drawing tasks[65]; spontaneous gesture studies[66]; ERP measurements[67]; response times[68], and eye-tracking[69]. MRI studies have shown that cognitive mappings are instantiated neurologically in the brain[70], and this suggests that conceptual metaphors as a real phenomenon are part of human cognition.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Metaphor, culture and intercultural communication literature and bibliography

[1] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 1.

[2] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.

[3] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.

[4] Habermas J., On the Logic of the Social Sciences, The MIT Press, Cambridge 1988.

[5] Liddicoat A., Crozet C. (Eds), Teaching language, teaching culture, Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Melbourne 2000, p. 2.

[6] Barnlund D., Communication in a global village, [in:] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural communication: A reader, Wadsworth, Belmont, p. 13.

[7] Tylor E.B., Primitive Culture, John Murray, London 1971, quoted after: Kroeber A.L., Istota kultury, PWN, Warszawa 2002, p. 152.

[8] Kłoskowska A. Kultura masowa, PWN, Warszawa 1980, p. 40.

[9] Bovee C.L., Thill J.V., Business Communication Today, Random House, New York 1989, p. 587.

[10] Hall E.T., Bezgłośny język, PIW, Warszawa 1987.

[11] Chmielecki M., Teaching intercultural communication in Polish higher education management programmes – a critical look, “Journal of Intercultural Management”, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2012, pp.79-89.

[12] Folb E., Who’s got the room at the top? Issues of dominance and nondominance in intracultural communication,[In:] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural communication: A reader, Wadsworth, Belmont 1982.

[13] Hall E.T., Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York 1976.

[14] Harris P.R., Moran R.T., Moran S.V., Managing Cultural Differences. Global Leadership Strategies for the 21st Century (Managing Cultural Differences, Elsevier Science & Technology Books), Burlington 2004, p. 17.

[15] Honeycutt J. M., Components and functions of communication during initial interaction, with extrapolations, to beyond, [In] Deetz S.A. (ed.), “Communication yearbook”, Vol. 16., Sage, Newbury Park 1993, pp. 461-490.

[16] Sitaram K., Cogdell R.T., Foundations of Intercultural Communication, Ch. E. Merill Publications Co.Columbus 1976, p. 26.

[17] Carbaugh D. (ed.), Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey 1990 and Carbaugh S., Cultural Communication and Intercultural Encounters: Personhood, Strategic Actions and Emotions, “Teoria Sociologica”, No. II(3), 1994, pp. 17-34.

[18] Lustig M., Koester J., Intercultural Competence, HarperCollins, New York 1993, p. 58.

[19] Porter R., Samovar L., Basic Principles of Intercultural Communication, [In] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural Communication, Wadsworth, Belmont 1991, pp. 5-22.

[20] Spitzberg B.H., Intercultural Communication Competence, [In] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds.), Intercultural communication, Wadsworth, Belmont 1991, pp. 353-365.

[21] Williams K.C., Spiro R.L., Communication Style in the Salesperson-Customer Dyad., “Journal of Marketing Research”, No. 22 (November), 1985, pp. 434-442.

[22] Webb J., Keene M., The impact of discourse communities on international professional communication, [In] Lovitt C. R., Goswami D. (eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication, Baywood, New York 1999.

[23] Yan R., Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to intercultural communication, “Journal of Business and Technical Communication”, No. 11, 1997, pp. 297-320.

[24] Hall E.T., The silent language, Garden City, Anchor, New Jersey 1959.

[25] Hofstede G., Kultury i organizacje. Zaprogramowanie umysłu, PWE, Warszawa 2000.

[26] Victor D.A., International professional communication, Harper Collins, New York1992.

[27] Beamer L., Learning Intercultural Communication Competence, “Journal of Business Communication”, No. 29, 1992, p. 285.

[28] Hampden-Turner C., Trompenaars F., Riding the waves of culture,McGraw-Hill, New York 1998.

[29] Yan R., Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to intercultural communication, “Journal of Business and Technical Communication”, No. 11, 1997, pp. 297-320.

[30] Ghauri P.N., Usunier J.C. (eds.), International Business Negotiations, Pergamon,Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford 1996, pp. 21-38.

[31] Todorov T., Nous et les autre, Seuil, Points 1992, p. 282.

[32] E.g.: Adler N., International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati 2002.; Hofstede G., Cultures’ consequences: International differences in work related values, Sage, Beverly Hills 1980; Hofstede G., Cultures and organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival – Software of mind, 2nd ed., Mc-Graw Hill International (UK) Limited, London 1991; Trompenaars  F.,  Hampden-Turner  C.,  Riding  the  Waves  of  Culture:  Understanding Cultural  Diversity  in  Business,  Second  Edition,  London  &  Santa  Rosa,  Nicholas  Brealey  Publishing Limited 1997; Earley C.P., Erez M. (Eds.)  New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, „Frontiers of Industrial & Organizational Psychology”, Jossey-Bass Publishers 1997.

[33] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 1.

[34] Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede BV 2005, p. 4.

[35] Bjerke B., Kultura a style przywództwa, Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Kraków 2004, p. 13.

[36] Callies M., Zimmermann R., Cross-Cultural Metaphors Investigating Domain Mappings Across Cultures, Philipps-Universität Marburg 2002, p. 11.

[37] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980, p. 57.

[38] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p 119.

[39] Lakoff G., Johnsen M., Metaphors we live by, The university of Chicago press, London 2003, p. 59.

[40] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 598.

[41] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 598.

[42] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 599.

[43] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p 119.

[44] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 70.

[45] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 64.

[46] Source text (ST), target text (TT), source language (SL), target language (TL)

[47] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 65.

[48] Cristofoli M., Gunhild D., Stage L., Metaphor, meaning and translation, „Hermes, Journal of Linguistics”, No. 20, 1998, p. 168.

[49] Mashal N., Faust M., The effects of metaphoricity and presentation style on brain activation during text comprehension, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 25 (1), 2010.

[50] Inhoff A.W., Lima S.D., Carroll P.J, Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading, „Memory and Cognition”, No. 12 (6), 1984.

[51] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York 2001.

[52] Blasko D.G., Kazmerski V.A., ERP correlates of individual differences in the comprehension of nonliteral language, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 21 (4), 2006, p. 280.

[53] Coney J., Lange A., Automatic and attentional processes in the comprehension of unfamiliar metaphors, “Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social”, 25 (2), 2006, p. 94.

[54] Searle J.R., Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York 1979, p 105.

[55] Blasko D.G., Connine C.M., Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing, „Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition”, No. 19 (2), 1993, pp. 295-308.

[56] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language – from metaphors to idioms, „Oxford Psychology Series 36”, Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

[57] Morgan G., Images of organization, Sage, Newbury Park 1986, p. 4.

[58] Gmür, M. (2006). From Charts and Sails. Metaphors of Management and Organization in Germany and France. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 1, 175-186.

[59] Strand R., Freeman R.E. Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia, “Journal of Business Ethics” 2013. 

[60] Strand R., Freeman R.E. Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia, “Journal of Business Ethics” 2013. 

[61] David F.R., Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, Tenth Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education International 2005.

[62] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books, New York 1999, pp. 81-89.

[63] Gibbs R., Embodiment and linguistic meaning, „Brain and Language”, No. 84, 2003, pp. 1-15.

[64] Boroditsky L., Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors, „Cognition”, No. 75(1), 2000, pp. 1–28; Gibbs R. and Colston H.L., The Cognitive Psychological Reality of Image Schemas and Their Transformations, „Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 1995, pp. 347-378.

[65] Richardson D., Spivey M., Edelman S., Naples A., Language is Spatial: Experimental Evidence for Image Schemas of Concrete and Abstract Verbs, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, Erlbaum, New Jersey 2001, pp. 873-878.

[66] McNeill D., Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1992.

[67] Blasko D.G., Kazmerski V.A., ERP correlates of individual differences in the comprehension of nonliteral language, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 21 (4), 2006.

[68] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language – from metaphors to idioms, „Oxford Psychology Series 36”, Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

[69] Inhoff A.W., Lima S.D., Carroll P.J, Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading, „Memory and Cognition”, No. 12 (6), 1984, pp. 558-567.

[70] Mashal N., Faust M., The effects of metaphoricity and presentation style on brain activation during text comprehension, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 25 (1), 2010; Rohrer D., Taylor K., Pashler H., Wixted J.T., Cepeda N.J., The effect of overlearning on long-term retention, „Appl. Cognit. Psychol.”, No. 19, 2005, pp. 361–374.